Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the removal is forward-only and cannot affect immutable live or historic revisions. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the scope and reversibility characteristics of the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, both dense with useful information, and it front-loads the primary action and scope. Every clause earns its place, including the forward-only nuance and the immutability constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three straightforward ID parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is removed, from which revision type, and the constraints on live and historic revisions. It lacks only an explicit mention of side effects or return behavior, but these are not critical given the simple mutation and existing annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but the tool description clarifies the role of a 'queue's routing' in a revision, giving enough context to understand the parameter relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: removing a queue's routing from a draft revision. It also distinguishes this from related operations by specifying 'forward-only removal' and noting that live and historic revisions are immutable, so it is clear what this tool does and what it cannot do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates that this operation applies only to draft revisions and explicitly warns that live and historic revisions are immutable, which provides strong context on when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as setAutomationRevisionQueue or removeAutomationQueue, so it stops short of the highest benchmark.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.